Share this:

Many scientists and environmental advocates believe man-made components in plastics, particularly a group of compounds called phthalates and another hormonally active chemical known as bisphenol A (BPA), can leach harmful chemicals that get absorbed into our bodies. Illustration by Ranit Mishori, special to The Washington Post. Moved Wednesday, April 23, 2008. (Washington Post photo by Julia Ewan.)

IN 1986, California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 65 by a 63 percent to 37 percent margin. Its goals as advertised were to protect drinking water sources from toxic substances that cause cancer and birth defects and to reduce or, in some cases, eliminate exposures to those chemicals.

Many consumer products that come with warnings of possible harmful exposures do so as a result of Prop. 65.

This week, the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DARTIC), which recognize chemicals to be listed under Prop. 65, once again reviewed Bisphenol A (BPA).

BPA is an organic compound that has been added to plastics since the 1950s to increase strength. It is found in hundreds of household products, including bottles and food containers. It is present in the linings of canned goods, such as soup, baby formula and fruits and vegetables.

BPA is also used in electronics, thermal paper, car dashboards, eyeglass lenses and polycarbonate plastics from microwaveable containers to infant sippy cup.

BPA has a ubiquitous as well as innocuous (at least in the sense that we are unaware) presence in our daily lives. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 90 percent of Americans were found to have residues of BPA in their bodies.

Through an array of products, BPA also has been linked as potentially increasing the risk for diabetes, heart disease, birth defects and cancer.

It’s a multibillion dollar industry that has a strong group of well-financed allies who can afford lobbyists.

While lobbyists may be myopic in focus, their involvement does not necessarily imply wrongdoing. But it would appear that politics has muddied the science.

In 2009, DARTIC concluded unanimously that BPA did not meet the criteria for classification under California’s Prop. 65 as a reproductive toxicant.

Last year, the California Senate defeated a bill that would have banned its use in baby bottles, sippy cups and infant-formula packaging intended for use by children ages 3 and younger. The bill had passed in the Assembly.

How is it that the Legislature could vote on BPA after DARTIC rendered its conclusions, if politics was not involved?

Is BPA as dangerous as those who advocate for its ban claim, or is the alleged controversy much ado about nothing as its proponents maintain?

The specific concerns around BPA have centered on baby products. Connecticut was the first state to ban BPA from infant formula and baby products. Minnesota, Maryland, Wisconsin, Washington, Vermont and New York followed.

In 2007, a consensus statement by 38 experts on BPA concluded that average levels in people are above those that cause harm to many animals in laboratory experiments.

They added that measurement of BPA levels in serum and other body fluids suggests that either BPA intake is much higher than accounted for, or that BPA can bioaccumulate in some conditions, such as pregnancy, or both.

A 2011 study, the first to examine BPA in a continuous low-level exposure throughout the day, did find an increased absorption and accumulation of BPA in the blood of mice.

Those of us who are not scientists are left to wonder with understandable concern and fear that is driven more by the politics than the data.

How can a judicious conclusion be reached about BPA that is void of political influence and fear? Politics and fear are the twin demons that obfuscate reality.

How many studies and hearings need to be conducted before a conclusion is reached? Assuming momentarily that a conclusion is reached that adds BPA to the Prop. 65 list, BPA proponents would ask: “What then?”

Does California become the first step in a slippery slope that bans BPA nationwide? Would this mean cans that lasted months and, in some cases, years would have a shelf life going forward of only days?

If there is no cost-effective replacement, what would be the economic impact on society’s most vulnerable. And how would one juxtapose the economic concerns for a low-income population with the potential health implications?

These are questions that must be addressed, but can only be done if science leads the way. The science, and not the political and economic interests of outside organizations, must decide an issue critical to the well being of all Californians.